Direct Teaching

[oushi]

Buddhists have their methods to deal with karma. Christians had public confession. A great way to get rid of that painful sediment gathered by conscience. It even took a human/god sacrifice to clean it up. Still, people will defend conscience, as if it were a great treasure. It's nothing special, bunch of ideas, preferences, desires borrowed from society.

[Nothing]

So Sakyamuni does have a solution.....but partly...emmm....can you explain what you mean by "all recipients"...do you mean all human beings or animals etc? can you define this?

Not partly. You can approach someone directly and adjust the teaching to perfectly fit the person. Fantastic approach. Or you can compose a teaching that will cover the "shared" part of all recipients. It so happened, that the shared part is all there is. Nothing to throw away, nothing missing. Everything is the same pure presence taking different forms. This is mind.

You lost me now!....adjust the teaching? who is going to do the adjusting? teacher? why is this required anyway?

[dorjeshonnu]

What made you think that Buddha likes to pick and choose?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I am certain that Buddha never divides, as it would affirm duality.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The problem is not with Seng T'san or with Longchenpa, oushi, you simply seem to be lacking the oral explanation of their written texts.

Unfortunately I do not know if a person qualified to communicate these is present.

[oushi]

What made you think that Buddha likes to pick and choose?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I am certain that Buddha never divides, as it would affirm duality.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The problem is not with Seng T'san or with Longchenpa, oushi, you simply seem to be lacking the oral explanation of their written texts.

Unfortunately I do not know if a person qualified to communicate these is present.

I like extensive explanations. You reply lack such. Should I inquire what was on your mind, when you posted those links? I respect laziness, but it often brings misunderstanding. Please, be so kind and articulate your statements better, so I can explain my approach.
Thank you for assessing my understanding, and a good advice. If you can track falsehood of my understanding, the only way you can do it, is by comparing it to the right one. I will be glad to hear it from you, please be so kind and start from explaining this:

Ho! O Vajra Speech-Essence, listen! I, Samantabhadra, teach that by virtue of the first principle - that intrinsic gnosis is unborn and undying - there is not the slightest difference between a person who kills millions of sentient beings and one who practices the ten perfections (paramitas).

O Vajra Speech! I, Samantabhadra, teach that by virtue of the second principle - that the nature of reality is unstructured - there is not the slightest difference between a person who is always meditating upon emptiness and one who has never even momentarily entertained the idea of emptiness.

O Vajra Speech! I, Samantabhadra, teach that by virtue of the third principle - that gnosis is unconditioned - as to the completion of the accumulations of virtue and awareness there is not the slightest difference between a religious person who has performed countless conditional virtues and a psychopathic killer.

O Vajra Speech! I, Samantabhadra, teach that by virtue of the fourth principle - that the nature of gnostic awareness is unmoving - as to the vision of the real nature of things there is not the slightest difference between a person whose body and language exhibits all the signs of understanding and one who has never cared even momentarily to listen or study the teaching or to think about it.

O Vajra Speech! I, Samantabhadra, teach that by virtue of the fifth principle - that the nature of being is unborn and deathless - as to accessing realization there is not the slightest difference between a person experiencing the torment of hell and one experiencing the bliss of buddha.

O Vajra Speech! I, Samantabhadra, teach that by virtue of the sixth principle - the immutability of gnosis - as to intuiting the natural condition there is not the slightest difference between a person who has restrained discriminatory mental functions and one who has a strong fixated ego.

O Vajra Speech! I, Samantabhadra, teach that by virtue of the seventh principle - the intrinsicality of pure being - as to potential for fruition there is not the slightest difference between a person who performs all kinds of external offerings, uttering praise and prayers, and one who lives free of all religious activity.

O Vajra Speech! A person who lives by these seven great self-sprung principles gains confidence thereby in effortless realization, conviction in the understanding of appearance as inseparable from the three gnostic dimensions and intuition that he or she is buddha.

So Sakyamuni does have a solution.....but partly...emmm....can you explain what you mean by "all recipients"...do you mean all human beings or animals etc? can you define this?

Not partly. You can approach someone directly and adjust the teaching to perfectly fit the person. Fantastic approach. Or you can compose a teaching that will cover the "shared" part of all recipients. It so happened, that the shared part is all there is. Nothing to throw away, nothing missing. Everything is the same pure presence taking different forms. This is mind.

You lost me now!....adjust the teaching? who is going to do the adjusting? teacher? why is this required anyway?

To answer that, we need to go one step up. Can be hard if you are already lost.
Who is the teacher? (hit: he is not a person).
About the teaching. Why water forms a small stream, when it can be an ocean? Why direct teaching was kept secret, when it can benefit so many?

[dorjeshonnu]

I like extensive explanations.

Apparently like and dislike is a harmful dualism. (see your interpretation of Seng T'san)

intrinsic gnosis is unborn and undying - there is not the slightest difference between a person who kills millions of sentient beings and one who practices the ten perfections

naked wakefulness (gnosis is problematic throughout) is not dependent on bhavana, karma, or samsara

nature of reality is unstructured - there is not the slightest difference between a person who is always meditating upon emptiness and one who has never even momentarily entertained the idea of emptiness.

naked wakefulness is not dependent on maturation or development

gnosis is unconditioned - as to the completion of the accumulations of virtue and awareness there is not the slightest difference between a religious person who has performed countless conditional virtues and a psychopathic killer.

naked wakefulness is not dependent on accumulation

nature of gnostic awareness is unmoving - as to the vision of the real nature of things there is no difference between a person who exhibits all the signs of understanding and one who has never cared to listen or study the teaching or to think about it.

naked wakefulness is not dependent on appearances

nature of being is unborn and deathless - as to accessing realization there is not the slightest difference between a person experiencing the torment of hell and one experiencing the bliss of buddha.

naked wakefulness is not dependent on liking or disliking ongoing experiences

immutability of gnosis - as to intuiting the natural condition there is not the slightest difference between a person who has restrained discriminatory mental functions and one who has a strong fixated ego.

naked wakefulness does not depend on concentration or other patterns of thought

intrinsicality of pure being - as to potential for fruition there is not the slightest difference between a person who performs all kinds of external offerings, uttering praise and prayers, and one who lives free of all religious activity.

naked wakefulness does not depend on the methods of kriya, carya, or yoga tantras

confidence in effortless realization, conviction in appearance as inseparable from the three kayas, and knowledge that he or she is awake.

words above are designed to reassure the student-practitioner of the path from which these quotes have been excerpted (so as to lose their appropriate context) that what has been presented as 'buddha-nature' in other traditions intrinsically holds every capacity and possible modification from its base (because it is not dependent on time) and thus that methods which incorporate the conclusions philosophically (and reasonably) derived from this insight concerning intrinsically perfect and complete buddhahood are legitimate, and will be effective

The difference between what you seem to be stating and what this quote asserts is that you make no provision for the effects of lack of realization, lack of integration, and lack of utilization of this naked wakefulness in the case of any given practitioner. This may in part stem from the problem in translation of using "gnosis" as a signifier, which I believe pertains more particularly in its own tradition to praxis, whereas these statements do not. These are depictions of view, not instructions about some method. There is a difference between what you are stating on the basis of these quotes, and what is taught by qualified teachers about these quotes, because you have clearly never received qualified teaching from a qualified teacher about their meaning within a legitimate lineage of (in this case) Dzogchen instruction and practice.

[oushi]

The difference between what you seem to be stating and what this quote asserts is that you make no provision for the effects of lack of realization, lack of integration, and lack of utilization of this naked wakefulness in the case of any given practitioner.

Naked wakefulness is not dependent on realization, integration or utilization. Views are limited, that is why they exist. By excluding, even smallest fraction of reality, you end up with a view. Untrue states does not exist. Presence simply is. Naked wakefulness is not something you need to get to. It is the only thing there is.

"I determine all events and meanings.
Because no objects exist which are not me,
You are beyond perspective or meditation.
Because there does not exist any protection other then me,
You are beyond charismatic activity to be sought.
Because there is no state other then me,
You are beyond stages to cultivate.
Because in me there are, from the beginning, no obstacles,
You are beyond all obstacles, self-arising pristine awareness just is.
Because I am unborn reality itself,
You are beyond concepts of reality, subtle reality just is.
Because there is nowhere to go apart from me,
One is beyond paths to traverse."

"He" is always in play, nonjudgmental, like water flowing down the hills. Don't tell me that true water is only in the lake, when it quiets down. The only thing that spins the wheal of samsara is the pursuit of naked wakefulness which we never lacked. It is utilizing and integrating continuously, if you still see any meaning in those.

"Even attachment, anger, and stupidity
Arise from the path of the great pure presence"

Throw them away, and you throw Buddha away. Nothing is abandoned, nothing eliminated, nothing purified. Absolutely nothing to change.That is true freedom.

"You do not eliminate passions, as do those who are content with listening and preaching or being independent;
You do not refine away passions, as do bodhisattvas; and you do not transform them, as tantrics do - these judgmentally-conditioned passions are pure and transparent in their own place. This is called the spontaneously perfect, universally creative, self-generating majestic pure presence. In this lies the distinguishing superiority of this approach over all others. By means of this sheer presence, whatever passions arise are freed as the facets of pristine awareness."

And simply said:
"When hungry, I eat my food. When sleepy, I shut my eyes. Fools laugh at me; the wise understand"

Still, you may try to change yourself into a diamond through integration, realization, and utilization of naked wakefulness.

[dorjeshonnu]

"He" is always in play, nonjudgmental, like water flowing down the hills.

Samantabhadra woke up. Samantabhadra waking up did not wake you up.

[oushi]

"He" is always in play, nonjudgmental, like water flowing down the hills.

Samantabhadra woke up. Samantabhadra waking up did not wake you up.

And who is he? What is he? Where is he now?
"Listen, all you beings of the three realms without exception,
If I did not exist, you would not exist."
If you can find one thing that would exist without him existing, there is duality. If you cannot find such a thing, what is there to integrate?

[dorjeshonnu]

And who is he? What is he? Where is he now?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Awake. Gone-thus.

If you can find one thing that would exist without him existing, there is duality.

Not even tathata exists. For Samantabhadra, wakefulness. For Vajrasattva, Vajrasattva. For oushi, oushi. Remember to listen, it is very important.

[oushi]

Not even tathata exists.

If nothing exist, nonexistence is nonsense. Your statement contradicts itself.

Awake. Gone-thus.

Everything is awake.

Remember to listen, it is very important.

Start talking

[dorjeshonnu]

If nothing exist, nonexistence is nonsense. Your statement contradicts itself.

I have proposed neither existence nor non-existence, there has not been some thing to contradict.

Everything is awake.

Suffering appears.

Start talking.

I am not Samantabhadra any more or less than you are.
Samantabhadra spontaneously teaches as Samantabhadra.

[oushi]

So, what is existence?

I am not Samantabhadra any more or less than you are.

Why then say "you"?

[dorjeshonnu]

So, what is existence?

This.

Why then say "you"?

Suffering of ignorance.

[oushi]

When tired, I go to sleep.

[dorjeshonnu]

naked wakefulness is not dependent on the activity of gamma-aminobutyric acid

[CrawfordHollow]

From the teachings of the great awakened master, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

"The main reason why you cannot only teach the view is that quite a few people will miss the main point by believing, "I only need the view! There is nothing to do! I can give up all activities!" Of course, this may be true in some sense; however, what happens when someone gives up conventional Dharma practice too early is that such a person fails to do any spiritual practice in terms of purifying obscurations and gathering the accumulations. At the same time, he or she does not realize, progress in, and gain stability in the view. One can fool oneself into believing one need only remain in simplicity. What this honestly means, though, is that such a person will have no spiritual progress. Ultimately, it is definately true that there is nothing to do, but this is true only after one has passed through to the other side of understanding, experience, and realization. To maintain an intellectual conviction of the view without having undergone the training is a severe misunderstanding. This is how the self-profesed "Dzogchen practitioner" goes astray. I do not feel I can really blame Westerners who heard stories about the Buddha and Indian siddhas recieving the teachings on mind-essence and nondoing, and who then think, "Well, we are the same, there is nothing to do. Everything is fine as it is."
It is honestly not such a simple matter to arrive at the correct view. You must connect with a true master; you must have the necessary intelligence. Then you must go all the way through the training."

Troy

[oushi]

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche "Rainbow Painting", was my first contact with Dzogchen. Great book, I recommend.

"Ultimately, it is definately true that there is nothing to do, but this is true only after one has passed through to the other side of understanding, experience, and realization."

Understanding is what is expressed here. Experience is what follows. It is true, that is is not enough to say "Well, we are the same, there is nothing to do. Everything is fine as it is", because it will be still soaked with doubt. View is not a problem, self doubt is. This is why this topic has 4 pages, not one sentence. Because doubt is coming over and over again. Doesn't it?

"The master said: A moment of doubt in your heart is Mara. But if you can grasp that the ten thousand things are unborn and that the heart is like an illusive fantasy, then no thing even of the size of a speck of dust exists — everywhere is purity — this is Buddha."

It is not about saying this or that, or having such and such a view. View is always doubt based, as there is nothing solid to build it upon. In other words, no view will give you certainty. That is the whole point of understanding. You can say "I am certain that I grasp this beer can!", but what is this grasping? I don't know. "This is mine", but who are you? I don't know. There is nothing to be found, nowhere. People think that if they practice, they will finally find it.
"You ought to conclude that even the ten essential aspects of tantra are also not found upon inquiry. "

Not all will understand, but this natural inquiry that is taking place, is the gravity of Buddha. It is always in play, for everyone. It makes the world spinning.

[dorjeshonnu]

Because doubt is coming over and over again.

method is not the result of doubt, method is the result of view

View is always doubt based, as there is nothing solid to build it upon.

solidity does not prevent doubt, view is based on this with that, and on this then that

In other words, no view will give you certainty.

method does not rely on having certainty, certainty is a child of view and method

There is nothing to be found, nowhere. People think that if they practice, they will finally find it.

when certainty is found, it is empty and so on
when certainty is not found, view is not understood, and method is incomplete

It makes the world spinning.

that is just the conservation of angular momentum during orbital motion, the play of gravity with gravity

[CrawfordHollow]

View is a problem if you don't have the realization to back it up. I would say that self doubt would be a problem for someone without contact with a genuine teacher. You said that Rainbow Painting was your first contact with Dzogchen. That statement in itself is flawed, for one cannot contact Dzogchen from a book. May I ask who then is your Dzogchen teacher? If you don't have a genuine teacher then I am afraid you have yet to contact Dzogchen. You can quote Longchenpa all day long but those are only words from a book.

You seem almost desperate to prove something to us (or yourself). So what exactly are you trying to prove? What are your intentions here? In another post you challenged: "you can always refute my view, if you can..." So what need is there to prove something if there is nothing to prove and nobody to prove it to? If no effort is needed, then why all of this effort into proving yourself?

I will say that it is obvious you are highly intelligent and I believe that you mean no harm. But an intellectual understanding is no substitute for genuine realization born from, yes practice. I am just a simple practitioner with many flaws and misunderstandings. The only thing positive that I can say about myself is that I have a supportive family who loves me and have been blessed with the opportunity to meet many wonderful teachers. None of these teachers ever needed to preach about emptiness or wholeness, because they embodied that truth. From what I have seen, when one finally does realize these ultimates every action becomes an expression of that realization. I think finding yourself a real teacher would do you some good.

Troy

[oushi]

Did I start this topic? I only replied. You shouldn't feel contempt, as nothing that I posted is true. You may only ask yourself, why did you follow it all the way. Honestly. Then I will tell you why I posted, and who is my teacher.